MTP Transcript for Oct. 15

REP. KENNEDY: Yes, but he also said that we want to have a peaceful and diplomatic solution. So we have to push every channel we can to achieve it in a peaceful and diplomatic way, not taking anything off the table. And we’ve seen a step towards that just yesterday. We need to continue, and we need to continue to push China.

MR. RUSSERT: But if George Bush leaves office with nuclear devices in North Korea, will it have been a failed policy?

REP. KENNEDY: We need to take every step we can to prevent that from happening.

MR. RUSSERT: Ms. Klobuchar?

MS. KLOBUCHAR: You know, as a prosecutor, I know that when people cross a line, Tim, there’s got to be consequences. And in foreign affairs, it’s the same thing. I believe these sanctions are incredibly important; we can’t have North Korea begin to be some kind of weapons factory, and they can’t be selling and bartering nuclear materials. And the rest of the world is watching. We don’t want to create an arms race here. And especially Iran is watching, and that’s why I think these sanctions are incredibly important.

MR. RUSSERT: But if the North Koreans ignore them, what do we do?

MS. KLOBUCHAR: Again, we have to keep ratcheting things up. We have to keep working with our partners.

But one of the things that went wrong here is that these multilateral discussions broke down, North Korea walked away from the table, and I believe we have to keep talking. We have to—it’s good that China’s part of this, but if it’s moving in the right direction and if we believe it’s in our national security interests, we should be talking to them directly. I mean, even during the Cold War we kept talking to Russia. And so the discussions are important, and we need to keep the diplomatic pressure on.

MR. RUSSERT: Should President Bush sit down one-on-one with Kim Jong Il?

MS. KLOBUCHAR: Again, it’s too early to say that, but I believe that we need to keep those discussions going, as well as keeping the sanctions ratcheting up, if necessary, and keeping the military option on the table.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what Bill Clinton, when he was president 13 years ago, said about North Korea right here on “Meet the Press.”

(Videotape, November 7, 1998):

PRES. BILL CLINTON: North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.

We have to be very firm about it.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: So we’ve had two presidents, one Democrat, one Republican. When President Clinton said that, the North Koreans probably had the potential to build two nuclear devices. It’s now up to 13. And if nothing is done when George Bush leaves office, it could reach 17. It seems as though the United States talks tough with North Korea, but allows the program to go forward.

MS. KLOBUCHAR: Again, keeping the military option on the table is key, but these sanctions are the first step, and unlike how we handled Iraq or where it was “Go it alone,” I believe we have to work with our allies in the area. That’s starting to happen more, but we have to keep that up.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq, because it’s an issue that’s been very important in your campaign and one that I think is affecting elections all across the country. Mark Kennedy, you’ve been there three times. Let me go back to comments you made after your first trip in ‘03.

“On the whole, the trend [in Iraq] is very positive. ... Our troops ... face ... a collection of terrorists and thugs, of whom there are fewer each day.” That’s just dead wrong.

REP. KENNEDY: If you looked at the time in 2003, months afterwards, were we potentially a bit optimistic? Possibly. And we’ve seen more challenges than we expected, no question. But if you look at what’s happened, we have trained 300,000 Iraqi troops. We have a government that is a unity government.

This is the number one issue in this race, and there are stark differences between my opponent, Ms. Klobuchar, and myself. She says it’s a distraction. I think that it is one of the central fronts in the war on terror. Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi says as well. She has set out a specific timetable for bringing our troops home that would tell the terrorists when they can take over an oil-rich country as a sanctuary for terrorists. And I believe we ought to be bringing our troops home as soon as we can after we’re sure the terrorists can’t win. And she’s also come out against a bill funding body armor for our troops that a majority of Democrats join me in supporting. We have no higher priority than to support our troops in time of war, and we have to win this war on terror.

MR. RUSSERT: But 10 months ago you said “Progress was clear, we’re making great strides.” Why shouldn’t voters in Minnesota say, “This is rosy-colored glasses. It’s not reality. There were no weapons of mass destruction and the level of sectarian violence is at an all-time high and Congressman Kennedy is saying, ‘Everything’s fine. We’re making progress.’”

REP. KENNEDY: I never said everything’s fine, but we are making progress.

MR. RUSSERT: “Progress is clear. We’re making great strides. It’s very positive”?

REP. KENNEDY: Each and every year I go back to Iraq. I see a government that is further down the path of being independent and addressing serious issues. Each and every year I go back, their military is more closely—more fully developed and taking over more and more of the responsibilities for us. The path is to make sure that terrorists can’t win. And by so doing, allow us to bring our troops home. But we also need to make sure we’re taking care of ourselves here at home. Again, key differences in the war on terror. Ms. Klobuchar has come for weakening the Patriot Act that has allowed us to have five years without a terrorist attack on our country. She’s come out against making sure that we were paying attention when al-Qaeda was talking to somebody in America to make sure that we knew what plots they were planning. And she came out against a bill to make sure that we can get the intelligence we need from those we hold in custody to prevent future attacks. We cannot let the same poor judgment that Ms. Klobuchar has shown, that has made Minneapolis more dangerous, to be in the U.S. Senate, making America less safe.

MR. RUSSERT: Knowing what you know today, if the CIA came to you and said, “Congressman Kennedy, Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction,” would you still vote to go into Iraq?

REP. KENNEDY: We acted on the information that we knew at the time.

MR. RUSSERT: No, but knowing what you know today, would you still vote?

REP. KENNEDY: We acted—you know, you can’t really play TiVo and rewind in the real world, but let me just say this: First of all, I stand by my vote. And second of all, we just got done talking about Korea. We just got done talking about consequences for actions. Seventeen U.N. resolutions. If we had let one of the top sponsors of terrorists, that was paying thousands of dollars to those families that had suicide bombers, if we had let 17 U.N. resolutions go by, what chance would we have of North Korea or China paying any attention to the resolution just passed yesterday?

MR. RUSSERT: So you’d still go into Iraq?

REP. KENNEDY: I stand by my vote. We can’t rewind. We acted on the information we knew at the time and acted correctly.

MR. RUSSERT: Ms. Klobuchar, you said on your Web site, “2006 ... should be a year of transition in which we bring a significant number of our troops home.” This is October, now, of 2006. You told the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, “I am saying change the course. I believe that we need to bring a significant number of our troops home. ... One would hope that by 2007, we would have withdrawn the vast majority of our troops [from Iraq].” That’s next—a matter of months from now. Is that still your position?

MS. KLOBUCHAR: Tim, you know, the congressman is talking about body armor, and of course I support body armor for our troops, I support winning this war on terror by being smart, I supported the Patriot Act. But I will say this: the best way that we can protect our troops is to get this policy right, and I believe that that means changing course in Iraq.

We need to transition to Iraqi governance, we need to send the clear message that they have to take control of their own government, and that means no permanent military bases. The congressman and I differ on this. This means not saying 2010 we’re going to have the same number of troops. And we need to be more accountable for the help that we’re giving Iraq.

You look at what’s been happening here, you know, $10 billion in cost overruns with Halliburton, putting a 24-yer-old in charge of the stock exchange with no financial experience, building a military academy for $75 million for the police and then finding out the plumbing isn’t right so they have to demolish part of it. I believe that we do need to start bringing our troops home. Clearly, at this time, this late date in mid-October, we can’t bring a significant number home. We have to be reasonable. I have never been one to say “Bring them all home tomorrow.” I have never subscribed to one of those mandatory dates, because I understand that, despite my opposition to the war from the beginning, that we have to be responsible about how we bring our troops home.

MR. RUSSERT: But you did say, “Bring home a significant number this year,” and you’re saying now that’s probably not doable. What about a “vast majority in 2007,” which is what you said also?

MS. KLOBUCHAR: These predictions were built on the promises and the predictions of progress from this administration, and we simply haven’t seen that. So you have to be reasonable in what you’re going to do here. But let me tell you this, you cannot solve a problem that you don’t admit exists, and that is what’s going on here with the congressman. This war has basically devolved into a civil war. Eight times the number of deaths were caused by sectarian violence other than by bombs. You have Shiite militia roaming the neighborhoods and taking young men, putting them in cars, shooting them in the head and dumping them out on the streets. This is a civil war, and, yes, we need to be more accountable and do a better job of training the police, but we also have to realize that this solution isn’t going to be more boots on the ground, it’s going to be a diplomatic and political solution. It’s—we have done this before with even more difficult situations. This war, as of Thanksgiving, will have lasted longer than World War II. So I believe that we need to bring people together and help this country to come up with a diplomatic and political solution in addition to giving them the tools that they need.

MR. RUSSERT: Speaking of predictions, Congressman Kennedy, this is what you said six months ago. “I fully expect that over the next year there will be a significant number of troops who will be returning home because of success in Iraq.” Flat wrong.

REP. KENNEDY: I said in November that...

MR. RUSSERT: But this is February, six months ago.

REP. KENNEDY: ...in February that we expected troops. We have less troops, not as much as I would like, we’ve run into tougher patches...

MR. RUSSERT: A significant number. Why can’t you say you were wrong?

REP. KENNEDY: I was wrong in the significant number, I was right in terms of the fact that there are less troops, but I’m also right in saying, whatever I said, I’m going to support what the commanders in the field say. And when we talk about accountability—let’s talk about accountability.

Ms. Klobuchar refuses to be accountable for coming out against the bill funding body armor for our troops. She refuses to be accountable for statements that she says, and, and you didn’t get the June of this year NPR, where she said she wanted more than half the troops out this year and all of them out by next year. That is a clear timetable. That is irresponsible. And she’s also—continues to try to mislead people, not just about her own record and where’s she’s taken positions, but about my record as well. I never voted for permanent bases. I voted for making sure that we could have an agreement as to keeping our troops in a sovereign country and making sure that we had the base protection that would keep our troops safe. We need to bring our troops home as soon as we can, after we’re sure the terrorists can’t win. But we don’t need to let politicians’ predictions or anything else drive this, it has to be the commanders in the field and what is going to achieve that end.

MR. RUSSERT: To that end, Ms. Klobuchar, there was a question asked of you back in March. “QUESTION: So your desire to withdraw troops does not depend on the commanders agreeing with it. They should be told to do it and just told to find the best way to do it. AMY KLOBUCHAR: Correct.”

And then this: “If the president is unwilling to provide a plan [for the drawdown of American troops], Congress should call upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do so.”

So you would overrule the military commanders and you think the Senate has the authority to direct order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw down troops?

MS. KLOBUCHAR: Tim, no, I don’t believe that. What I was saying here is because the president refuses to bring us a plan and deal with this as it is, as a civil war, that we need to have the direction coming from Washington. Of course we should listen to the commanders on the ground. In fact, there’s generals that have returned from there that say we need to change course. Senator Warner just came back from there and said “Give this a few months, and we need to change course.” Jim Baker went over there and started talking about this.

What I’m hearing is a general consensus around what I’m talking about, that we cannot, as Congressman Kennedy and the president are talking about, just stay the course indefinitely with more troops dying, over $300 billion spent.

And the idea is to listen to the commanders on the ground, but to have the direction come from Washington that we need to change course. I was talking about bringing the Joint Chiefs in to discuss with Congress what the plan should be, because I just do not see it coming from this commander in chief.

MR. RUSSERT: If we withdrew from Iraq and a full-blown civil war erupted, what do we do?

MS. KLOBUCHAR: First of all, we aren’t going to completely withdraw from Iraq at this moment. And I believe that we need to redeploy some of these troops to surrounding areas so that they would be ready to come in. And I’m not suggesting...

MR. RUSSERT: Where? Where would we put them?

MS. KLOBUCHAR: Well, in Afghanistan, where we’ve seen a complete, a deterioration of the situation there, in part because we have put singular focus on Iraq, and to surrounding areas, perhaps Kuwait, other places that we can keep these troops so that can come back in if necessary. Again, reaching out to regional powers to get their help. You cannot, you cannot talk about this unless you acknowledge that this is a civil war that’s going on here. Yes, there’s terrorists there. In fact, 16 agencies of this government who deal with national intelligence said that this war has fomented more terrorism.

So if we look at what we need to do about the war against terror, we need to get—to be smart about this, we need to focus on Afghanistan again and get that situation under control, we need to beef up our homeland security where the 9/11 Commission has given us D’s and F’s. You know, the president identified the “axis of evil” when he talked about North Korea and Iran. We have them both now talking about nuclear weapons.

MR. RUSSERT: Republicans have been talking about Iraq in a very different way. Jim Baker, the head of the Iraq study group, former secretary of state for former President Bush: “I happen to think ... that there are alternatives between ...” the course and cut and run and staying the course. Negotiate a settlement. Strong suggestion.

And this from John Warner, Republican, chairman of the Armed Services Committee: “I assure you, in two or three months, if this thing hasn’t come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control, ... I think it’s a responsibility of our government ... to determine: is there a change of course we should take? And I wouldn’t take off the table any option at this time.”

So you talk about timetables. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Republican, has basically said to the Iraqis, “You have 90 days to stop the violence or we could very well change the course, and every option’s on the table.”

REP. KENNEDY: Senator Warner has also said and rejected a specific timetable for withdrawal. And I agree with Senator Warner. We ought to, not just in two or three months, but at every stage along the way, say, “Is there adjustments we need to be making?’ We have been making adjustments. I’ve seen the adjustments in the three years I’ve been there. And we need to continue to make adjustments.

But when you say that the solution, as Miss Klobuchar says, is diplomatic and political, you can’t negotiate with people that are ruthless and glory in killing innocent women and children. We need to make sure that terrorists can’t win so that we can bring our troops home as quickly as possible.

MR. RUSSERT: No matter how long it takes?

REP. KENNEDY: We need to make sure that the terrorists can’t win. We cannot let Iraq became a sanctuary for terrorists.

MR. RUSSERT: And you believe this war can be won militarily?

REP. KENNEDY: There’s no question that we need to also prod the political forces within Iraq, as we have been. And make sure they address some of the key issues that are, that are causing some of the foment, making sure that we get this federalism issue solved. We understand federalism in America; we have states and federal government. We also need to make sure they get this “Who owns the oil?” I think they ought to take a path where the Iraqi people own the oil, just like they do in Alaska. We also need to make sure that they see the progress on the ground.

But, these are steps that need to be pushed politically, but they can’t be done if we’re saying, “We’re going to pull our troops away and leave a young democracy without the kind of support necessary to make sure it has time to get a political solution.”

MR. RUSSERT: You invoked Miss Klobuchar’s name; I’ll give her a chance to respond.

MS. KLOBUCHAR: Tim, this is just more of the same. More of the same of this administration, more of the same with Congressman Kennedy. And, you know, I just heard Trent Lott a few weeks ago, the press asked him, “What do, what do you think about Iraq?” and he said to the reporters, “You are the only ones obsessing about Iraq. Real people in the real world aren’t obsessing about Iraq.” Well, I guess he didn’t talk to the mom up in Mahnomen, Minnesota, whose child is going on his second tour of Iraq and she can’t sleep anymore. Or Claremont Anderson in western Minnesota, who’s driven hundreds of miles to come to our events, and every time he cries when someone asks a question about Iraq because his child was killed over there.

These are real people in the real world who are looking for solutions. And the way to get this right for our troops is to give them equipment that they deserve, but also to get this policy right, and to admit that we need to change course—not do anything radical, not bring all the troops home right away—but to pursue a diplomatic and political solution. And I don’t think that it’s right for Congressman Kennedy to criticize me for that when members of his own party and experts in this area are saying the same thing.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, what question would you ask him?

MS. KLOBUCHAR: I would ask him how come he won’t even admit that he was wrong about voting for this war when we are in the situation we’re in, when we’ve spent over $300 billion, when many members of his own party have admitted that this war was not the right direction, that in fact it has fomented terrorism. That we now have 16 agencies of our own government, of President Bush’s administration saying that this has added more terrorism in this world.

MR. RUSSERT: Let you answer that question, and ask her one.

REP. KENNEDY: Let’s talk about what the 16 agencies said. They said that we are clearly activating terrorists in Iraq, having taken the challenge to them. But they also said we have to prevail. If we don’t prevail, it will greatly mushroom this threat, let it grow in size, and come to face our future generations, where we wouldn’t be able to ask—answer the question that our kids would say to us, “Why did you let this happen?” They said that if we, if we lose, that’s what will happen; if we win, we will greatly degrade what’s happening on the other side.

And what I would say—what would—what would I ask my opponent: How can you change your position from saying we ought to ignore commanders months ago, that we ought to have a specific timetable, and call that consistent? How can you say you’re going to support our troops in the field during a time of war when you came out against a bill funding body armor for our troops that a majority of Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, supported? How can you say that you’re going to comply by the 9/11 Commission when you came out for weakening the Patriot Act, when you came out against making sure we were paying attention to what al-Qaeda was saying in this country about plotting future attacks, and you came out against a bill for making sure we could get information from those we hold in custody, and call this bill that John McCain, who still bears the marks of torture, call this bill that is critical for our security a torture bill? How can you be so disrespecting? It’s, it’s consistent with what her own employees said about her, that this is someone who only cares about her career advancement, and nothing else. How can you criticize not just McCain, but also our troops in the field? Last week, she criticized the way our troops were training Iraqi troops. We need to have somebody with a consistent view on bringing our troops home as soon as we’re sure the terrorists can’t win.

MR. RUSSERT: A lot of questions there.

MS. KLOBUCHAR: Tim, I would say this is why we’re in the mess we’re in in Iraq, because of this political gamemanship. Congressman Kennedy didn’t even answer my question, and instead proceeded to ask many questions. And I will tell you a few of these answers.

I am committed to this war against terror. I am someone who puts people in jail for a living. I am tough on security. And I will tell you this: I believe that the people on the front line have to have the tools to wire-tap, they have to have the tools to do the surveillance that we need. I supported the Patriot Act, I did support some of the changes that were later made to the Patriot Act with library books, library records and things like that. I also believe that we should have gotten that detainee bill right, something like what was originally passed out at the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Supreme Court gave this Congress a duty, and the Supreme Court said to this Congress, “Get this right.” Instead, they passed a very broad bill that I don’t believe will meet constitutional muster. I didn’t have to take this position, but I feel it’s the best position because they were putting their short-term political gain in front of the bigger quest of winning the war against terror so that they could go on Sunday morning talk shows like this one and claim that their opponents were weak on security and weak on terror. I think Democrats should welcome this debate on security. And we’re having it in our state, and the people are listening.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Sept. 20: President Obama, Sen. Graham, Rep. Boehner, roundtable Sept. 13: Durbin, Cornyn, Dean, Gingrich, roundtable Sept. 6: Axelrod, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: